Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs From: "Paul Hager" <[h--ge--p] at [cs.indiana.edu]> Subject: On the Campaign Trail -- Part 4 Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 07:40:23 -0500 On the Campaign Trail -- A Journal Part 4 TUESDAY, 5-OCTOBER-1993 At tonight's Bloomington Civil Liberties Union meeting, I sought approval of the group to submit a draft ordinance to the City Council that would take the local police out of the marijuana law enforcement business. At last month's meeting, we had discussed the possibility of finding a compliant City Council member who would sponsor an ordinance that would make marijuana possession in Bloomington an infraction. The idea was that if someone was caught with marijuana they would pay a nominal fine which would then protect them from state or federal prosecution because of double jeopardy. (This is the approach used by a number of municipal governments around the country to avoid having to enforce the marijuana laws.) I had found the "compliant" City Council member: Paul Swain, a former ICLU cooperating attorney who was in his first term on the council. I had spoken to Paul shortly after the previous BCLU meeting. He was willing to introduce an ordinance aimed directly at the "zero tolerance" policies of local law enforcement. It transpired that Indiana denies us the infraction remedy because of the Home Rule Law which prohibits any smaller governmental unit in the state from legislating in areas where there is already state law -- in other words, there is an absolute state preemption over municipalities. What this meant was that our draft ordinance had to attack the issue from a different direction. Because Bloomington is the employer of the Bloomington police, the approach we came up with is to have the City Council set enforcement policy. Thus, the ordinance states that Bloomington police will neither investigate nor make arrests under the marijuana laws. I submitted several versions of a draft ordinance. After some discussion about the preamble, I was delegated put the draft in final form and submit it to Paul Swain. It should be noted that, originally, the idea was to focus on misdemeanor marijuana law violations. The BCLU, however, drew no such distinction. In other words, in our proposed draft there is no difference between 1 gram of marijuana and 1 kilogram (or 1 metric tonne, for that matter). Our position is that if the marijuana laws are to be enforced, let the state or the feds do it, seeing as they have arrogated the prohibition power to themselves anyway. WEDNESDAY, 6-OCTOBER-1993 My wife called me at work to ask me if I'd seen the editorial page of the Bloomington paper. Yes, I said. Was she talking about the letter someone had written defending the police and the drug war? Yes, she said. She then wanted me to hear something she had written in response. It was a wonderful letter that pointed out that the social cost of legal cocaine would be less than the social cost of legal alcohol, that marijuana was less addictive than coffee, that smoked tobacco was the most harmful drug to its users of any recreational drug -- in short, a capsule of some of the main factual "zingers" that knock the prohibitionists off stride. What was most significant about this letter was that my wife had recently severed her connection with a local law firm in order to go independent. Until she began reading the letter to me, I had forgotten that part of her agreement with the firm when she had joined was that she would refrain from putting out any writings under her name either advocating marijuana re- legalization or expressing criticism of the drug war. My notoriety had preceded her. While I think that most of the motivation for gagging my wife was concern over the firm's image and not the issue of the drug war itself (I knew one of the attorneys and had, years before, smoked pot with this person), I suspect that one of the old mossbacks may have performed the "service" of raising the concerns to that level. Now the gag is off. Another voice can be heard. I really have a sense that the forces of reaction are losing their grip. The signs are beginning to appear everywhere. This is the time to redouble our efforts -- to push hard and keep the opposition off balance. * * * * I spoke to Dennis. He was ecstatic when he heard that my wife can now go public. He said something like, well, we've got a Harvard educated lawyer on our side now -- the bastards won't know what hit them. Somewhere in our conversation, the topic of TV commercials came up. Dennis said we should get some footage of, say, judges making some kind of drug war ruling and then have a buzzer go off: "Bzzzt -- no, sorry, your honor. That's unconstitutional." What a great idea, I said. We could go after any public official. We could have a whole series. Call it, "The Constitution Game." The commercial would be in a game show format. It might go like this: [Organ music, intro] MC: "It's time to play, THE CONSTITUTION GAME. Tonight's topic is, THE 5TH AMENDMENT. And the question is ... [opens an envelop] can you be deprived of property without due process of law? OK, [announcer's name] who is our first contestant?" Announcer: "Welcome Delaware Senator Joseph Biden!" [musical flourish] [insert footage of Biden -- probably from C-SPAN -- justifying some draconian drug war forfeiture abomination] [insert sound effect of a loud buzzer] MC: "Sorry, Senator. That's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Who is our next contestant?" Announcer: "He hails from New York -- it's Congressman Charles Rangel!" [musical flourish] [insert footage of Rangel talking about ditto] [insert sound effect of a loud buzzer] MC: "Oh, too bad, Congressman. That's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Who is our last contestant?" Announcer: "He's running for Congress in the 8th district -- meet, Paul Hager!" [musical flourish] [I appear and give the correct answer -- that forfeiture laws, by reducing the burden of proof for the government, effectively gut constitutional protections.] [insert sound effect of bell dinging -- music swells] MC: "That's right! It is CONSTITUTIONAL! Paul Hager, you are our GRAND PRIZE WINNER! But, before you find out what you've won, tell us, [announcer's name] what our losing contestants receive." Announcer: "Our losing contestants get THE CONSTITUTION HOME GAME and this bicentennial pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution." MC: "That's great, [announcer's name]. Well, that's all the time we have for now, tune in next time when, once again, we'll play, THE CONSTITUTION GAME." The same basic format could be used with a whole series of issues. There could be one on the 2nd Amendment having Charles Shumer and Howard Metzenbaum, for example. There could be one on the 9th Amendment and privacy, featuring Pat Buchanan and Norman Schwartzkopf talking about homosexuals in the military: "BZZZT ... Sorry, General. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL." For Schwartzkopf, the consolation prizes could include a biography of military genius and homosexual, Alexander the Great. The possibilities are endless. What we would really need to make this work would be someone who had access to a lot of news footage from which could be culled appropriate clips. THURSDAY, 7-OCTOBER-1993 The final draft of the ordinance was completed. I called Paul Swain to let him know that I would be sending it along. Paul is amenable to keeping us apprised of developments. I would expect that the draft ordinance will be transmogrified by the pressure of pragmatic politics. Still, the key is to force public debate. I've already got my speech planned. I'm including the ordinance and the accompanying letter to Paul Swain in this journal entry. The text follows: Proposed Ordinance Whereas, marijuana possession and use is a victimless crime; and, Whereas enforcement of marijuana laws necessarily requires police to use unsavory informants, to intimidate suspects, to invade private homes, and to risk fatal misunderstandings with armed homeowners; and, Whereas enforcement of marijuana laws diverts scarce public resources from serious crimes like robbery and rape; Be it therefore resolved that, henceforth, the Bloomington Police Department will refrain from investigations and arrests under the marijuana laws. 7 October 1993 [usual header information] Dear Paul, Enclosed is the proposed ordinance. As I indicated in our phone conversation, the Home Rule statutes prohibit the City from passing a law covering an area where a State law already exists. We believe, however, that the City, as employer of the Bloomington Police, can establish policy that the police are bound to follow. That is the tack we have taken here. On behalf of all of the people who support this effort, I'd like to express our thanks that you are bringing the issue of the "zero tolerance" enforcement of the marijuana laws before the City Council. I'm pleased at the extent to which people in the community have responded positively given that, up until recently, fear and paranoia (some of which is justified) have acted to keep most people silent. We feel that, for the first time in years, it has become politically possible to have an open debate about the drug war and its excesses. Our hope is that, at a minimum, this ordinance will further that debate. I've included my address and all of my phone numbers above. I've also included my e-mail address. Please feel free to contact me if any questions or problems arise. Thanks again. Paul Hager -- paul hager [h--ge--p] at [cs.indiana.edu] "The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason." -- Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_